McCain's Next Front: The Economy
John McCain may be a victim of his own success. His early, unwavering support of the military surge in Iraq ended up helping him win the nomination. And as the situation has become more stable over there, it has removed the war from the front pages here, diminishing what was suppose to be McCain's big liability.
As a result, though, voters now overwhelmingly see other issues, specifically the economy, as higher priorities for the presidential contenders. And that creates several real challenges for McCain.
The first is tonal. McCain fairly relishes delivering bad news and telling voters that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. In the primary, that’s what he told distressed auto workers in Michigan, and Floridians looking for a federal catastrophic home insurance policy.
He tried it again last week in a speech in which he admonished homeowners who “bought homes they couldn't afford, betting that rising prices would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates” and cautioned voters that “any assistance must be temporary and must not reward people who were irresponsible at the expense of those who weren’t.”
His analysis may have been correct, but it evidently wasn’t what many voters wanted to hear. His two potential Democratic opponents attacked him for ignoring the misery of homeowners. Several days later, McCain followed up with a statement explaining that he really did get it, declaring, “We have a responsibility to take action to help those among them who are deserving homeowners, and as I said this week, I am committed to considering any and all proposals to do so.”
So then his first hurdle: avoid sounding like Marie Antoinette when delivering hard truths to voters.
McCain will face another challenge in convincing voters that he is not a one-trick pony. If Mitt Romney could pull out McCain’s old quotes professing a relative lack of expertise about the economy, the Democrats certainly can. Hillary Clinton has conceded that McCain has impressive national security experience, but either of the Democratic contenders can argue that Americans are selecting a president, not a secretary of defense.
McCain needs to demonstrate proficiency (interest, even) in economic policy. He talks about his lifetime of preparation to fight Islamic terrorism, which he says is the “transcendent challenge” of our time, but voters want to know he is also prepared to deal with their own bread-and-butter issues.
And to the extent that he has talked about economic issues, he doesn’t seem yet to have found a way to do so that actually engages voters. Boasting of his devotion to fiscal discipline, McCain harks back to a Barry Goldwater vision of limited government. But after decades of government expansion and two terms of “compassionate conservatism”—which included a new drug entitlement program, massive domestic spending and the Federal Reserve’s intervention to recue Bear Stearns—even Republicans, not to mention other voters, have become attuned to a more interventionist government.
Simply put, voters want to hear what government will do, not just what plans McCain has for stopping government from doing bad or wasteful things. He’s still talking about the “bridge to nowhere,” but voters also want to hear about what the government will do about foreclosures and the rising costs of education and health care for middle-class Americans.
The conservative economic message that used to win elections, largely centering on tax cuts, has lost some of its punch as marginal tax rates have drifted downward and other concerns, like health care and globalization, have become more potent. To remain relevant, McCain will have to come up with affirmative ideas of his own that are true to his principles yet offer an attractive alternative to those of the Democrats.
McCain is not without such ideas. He actually has a market-oriented plan for making health care more affordable and a program for retraining displaced workers. Now he must be willing to talk about these and other responses to the problems Americans want addressed.
It will be no small task for a man so unaccustomed to telling voters that he feels their pain.
At least McCain tells it like it is - very refreshing for a politician.
It's just too bad Americans will only vote for people who tell them what the WANT to hear... and will never vote for the person that tells them what they NEED to hear.
It's because of that, we have this huge debt.
It's one of the downfalls of a republic democracy (even though it's the best for of gov ever tried). When enough people figure out they can vote in politicians that will give them "free" stuff, the nation goes bankrupt.
"But after decades of government expansion and two terms of “compassionate conservatism”—which included a new drug entitlement program, massive domestic spending and the Federal Reserve’s intervention to recue [sic] Bear Stearns—even Republicans, not to mention other voters, have become attuned to a more interventionist government."
They should become 'unattuned' and McCain should keep on telling anyone who will listen that they don't deserve to be shielded from financial risk. There's is no reason whatever that others, myself included, should pay for those who have entered difficulty, whether through no fault of their own or (more so) because they chose to speculate on home prices.
Just as there's no reason for me to bail out anyone large or small for choosing to invest in AT&T, gold stocks, or a Honda motorcycle, apart from contractual or family obligations, no one is morally obliged to rescue anyone from a downturn in price. After all, they don't reap the rewards of a rise in prices do they?
McCain, like anyone, should tell the truth, uncomfortable or not. And, not coincidentally, it's the surest way to getting elected. No one believes a politician's sugar coated lies.
"His analysis may have been correct, but it evidently wasn’t what many voters wanted to hear."
On the face of it, true. However the percentage of mortgage holders (home owners) that either bought too much house, speculated, or used equity to party with is very small compared to the number of responsible mortgage holders that actually live by a daily budget.
I believe this issue of foreclosures is over hyped. Sure there are bubbles bursting in California, Arizona and Florida but much of the country remains in no danger of wide spread foreclosures. Of course we all are taking a hit on the rate of appreciation of our homes and the big financial houses are taking it on the chin for gambling on sub primes. Now is the time for the home market to cool down, without congress trying to intervene and prop up unrealistic home prices.
It seems that Jennifer completely missed the mark. For most people, when they go in to vote, it's not one specific remark that is going to get the lever pulled for him. It's whether on the whole, do they feel safe putting him in charge of the economy for those who feel the economy is important. And at this point, it doesn't matter what McCain says. Good or bad, no one considers him an authority on economics including himself and by his own admission. The only way he can bolster that at this point is to ensure that his VP choice is seen to have that as part of his or her credentials. The only real clear choice that accomplishes that today in the eyes of the average person on day one is Mitt Romney. Anyone else will have to be built up as an economic authority over time and someone who doesn't have some credibility or success in the private sector will have a tough time building that credibility. And that is the point.
The problem is we don't let banks face consequences when they make poor and risky decisions. Let's face it, this whole crisis is because banks tried to trap people in debt and the people who they succeeded in trapping in debt have decided not to pay them what they "owe".
Look at it this way, when a bank loans money to you, they get 6% (and then more later with these adjusted rates). When we loan money to banks, they give maybe .5%, or maybe 3% if you trap the money there for years.
Credit card interest rates need to be regulated the bankers and investors of this world need to be told, "No, we're not communist, but at the same time we're not letting you rig the game".
"At least McCain tells it like it is - very refreshing for a politician."
He doesn't tell it like it is -- an endless stream of bullshit is all that comes out of his mouth.
I think it would be a stroke of genius for McCain to chose Mitt Romney as his running mate. McCain is 100% correct about those people who viewed home ownership as a piggy bank rather than a home.
There is an old saying about having a champaigne taste on a beer budget.
I am a big fan of Gov. Sarah Palin. I do not understand why Gov. Crist receives so much media coverage to be McCain's VP, when Gov. Palin has nearly identical experience as Crist does (and many would argue she has had more success)?
- Both have two years experience as a Governor and previous experience at local and state levels prior to being elected Governor.
This strikes of sexism.
Many head-to-head polls (McCain-Obama) show the # of undecided woman doubling, over a McCain-Clinton match-up. In this case (keeping in mind Palin is a middle-class conservative mother), would Palin not be a better choice than Crist? History has already proven that the geography of a VP means nothing, but exploiting alienated voter groups in the other party has worked.
Vote for the first presidential candidate that says there is no mortgage meltdown....it's all a lie....85% used to have a boarder.....now people choose a foreclosure ....let them have them foreclosures.
"Bring Romney on Board, Then Some Straight Talk"
Good article Jennifer. You're right that McCain needs to show proficiency and interest in the economy if he wants to earn the people's trust with such an important issue.
Here's three steps to do that:
1) Announce (early) Romney will be his Vice-President. Mitt Romney is a private sector superstar that fills a huge gap in McCain's otherwise strong resume. Romney's excellent at promoting free market solutions to effectively counter the populist rhetoric of Obama/Clinton. He’s also great at explaining why doing nothing (letting markets sort things out) is usually best.
2) Working with Romney, McCain should draft a major economy speech that educates voters about the successes of capitalism and how markets work best unfettered. For example, he can highlight how many hundreds of millions of people from India and China have been able to move from poverty to middle class and how that helps our economy (exports). He could talk about how liberal government policies and unions have crippled Detroit and Michigan hinting if you want America to follow the same course - elect Obama/Clinton.
3) The knockout blow would be to debunk the myth that America can trust Democrats with the economy because of the great Clinton economy of the 1990s. The fact is the booming economy of the 1990s began with a recovery in March 1991 - 20 months before Clinton took office in January 1993. He could find some prominent economist to back him up or simply point reporters to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (bea.gov).
In addition, the Clinton budget surpluses that Hillary's so proud of were a direct result of the fiscal discipline of the historic 1994 Republicans and their Contract with America. McCain should help Americans conclude that an Obama-Clinton economy would look more like Jimmy Carter’s economy not Bill Clinton's economy. In 1976, like 2008, a Democratic nominee (Carter) ran for President, with a struggling economy and a Democratic Congress. That combination (Dem President & Dem Congress) made a bad situation worse. Do we want to repeat history and be worse off in four years?"
Now that's some straight talk!
I believe McCain should seriously consider Bobby Jindal for VP. Jindal is smart - how many VP’s have been Rhodes Scholars? Also, I feel it is very important to neutralize Obama’s personal narrative as “THE sucessful product of new immigrants”. Jindal can serve to deflate that persona by showing that the American dream is something dear and possible for all individuals (regardless of race) on both sides of the aisle. Jindal is young and can add vitality to the ticket as well as governing (Gov. of Louisiana) and business experience (McKinsey).
It is very easy to blame the foolish for getting into a mortgage and a house they can't afford and hope that record property values will continue to climb.
The economy of the USA is a disaster and the blame goes to the Republican Party the Party of Little Government. What Bush/McCain have done to the USA is like the Biblical Plagues support big business with bailouts, subsidies and encourage outsourcing.
They make LIBERAL a dirty word not that any American Political Party is Liberal. Look at our neighbors to the north. Healthcare, drugs for the elderly free, good schools & yes they have been paying down national debt for well over 10 years with by far the lowest debt to GDP ratio of any G6 country.
Even the Conservative Party is more liberal than the Democrats. Why they pay higher taxes but do they? Start adding in your payments for healthcare etc your will be surprised how close they are.
How many of you when you travelled abroad wore Canadian Flags rather than American.
Liberal is the word that should be cried from the roof tops not scorned.
cam
Look, there is no way I can vote for McCain. This honesty crap has got to stop. I vote for politicians who make me feel good about my situation, not people who hold up a mirror, or people who tell me that we are a "remarkable people." Remarkable, hell. Send me a monthly government check. I was oppressed.
Actually Cam, you could argue that on economics and small government Bush has been anything but conservative:
+E85 Subsidies - Possibly more expensive, when rising food prices are taken in to account, then the Iraq war.
+Medicare and Education entitlements - These Bush greatly expanded.
+Federal Earmarks for Mass-Transit Expansion - Helped pay for both the Link light rail in the Puget Sound and the Second Avenue Subway line in New York, along with the soon-to-be-constructed Beltway Line in Atlanta.
+Steel Tarriffs against China - Not likely what Gingrich, McCain, or other small government types would have done.
+Creating an Additional Federal Department - Every Big-Government President since James Polk has had their own Federal Department to their credit, and it appears that Bush (Homeland Security) is no exception.
The only thing Bush has done that is economically or fiscally conservative is the tax cuts. To be honest with you, I suspect you would have seen more small government under Gore.
At least McCain understands that you don't help a struggling economy by raising taxes . . . something that Obama will do if elected.
Obama will argue that the war is too costly and will bring home troops regardless of ensuring stability in the region. Regardless of his running to the past to say that he was against the war from the beginning, the reality is that we are in a war in Iraq, and the American people want more than anti-war rhetoric.
Funny how democrats used the same arguments against Ronald Reagan during the cold war. However, Reagan stuck to his guns and won the cold war and broke the backs of communism. I think that most Americans would now say that the cold war was worth the cost. The same may be true for Iraq, it’s hard to say, but history may be on the side of McCain in the end if he wins the war and brings our troops home, leaving a presence in the region for diplomatic stability.
Obama’s vision for America is more like Jimmy Carter than Jack Kennedy . . . and you think it’s bad now, how about 20% interest rates, even/odd days to get gas and 444 days of American hostages being held in Iran because of Carters extreme passivism. We don’t need a passive President but a Commander and Chief that knows the real threats of our time.
I'm an idiot. Please disregard all of my inane posts.